Tuesday, July 16, 2013

This outstanding piece of work was sent to me back on June 15th. I've fallen a bit behind on email over the last month or two, so I must have missed it somehow. It's funny that on the very day after I open up a letter from the State of California Franchise Tax Board, claiming I owe them upwards of $4,000, something told me I needed to comb my emails to make sure I didn't miss anything pressing. Interesting synchronicity indeed.

I share this not to try to and convince anyone to stop paying their taxes. I share it to express the importance of doing our homework and knowing our rights. At this time of great transition, it's more than important. It's crucial. As I said on the radio show last night, it is our very consent to the systems that enslave us that voluntarily gives our power away, to be controlled by another. The IRS, the government, the banks, the courts don't take it from us....we give it to them. Well, I don't know about everyone else but I AM DONE giving mine away. "They" can try and come after me all "they" want. I know my rights, well enough anyway, to defend myself against what I KNOW to be True. The burden of proof lies on "them" to prove their power and jurisdiction over me which they DO NOT possess, in any way, shape, or form. When we share this attitude en masse, governments collapse. Revolutions ensue. Let us hold the intention for a peaceful transition. Without violence or bloodshed. How that takes place is up to us, "the people." We must continue to light the way.

"This world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

A BIG THANK YOU to my anonymous contact who pieced this all together. It's a bit long but absolutely brilliant. It goes to show how far a little research can go in defending our liberties.

Note: I changed the name to my own to keep my contact anonymous :)

Brian Kelly recently received a Notice of Proposed Assessment. I'm the Administrator of Brian Kelly and hereby protest this proposed assessment. There is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.

Brian Kelly is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. Brian Kelly's power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.

Brian Kelly owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

Brian Kelly's rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

Among Brian Kelly's rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. The IRS was a privately owned corporation that is now a foreclosed entity that never was a part of congress or the government.

God created men as executor & beneficiaries over the land, and no entity stands in between man and God. You must provide the following if he is even going to consider payment, let alone assume you have the authority over him.

2. Provide sworn, verified declaration and identification of law that also verifies that the IRS is not a foreclosed entity (according to UCC Doc # 2012127914 Nov 28 2012, WA DC UCC Doc# 2012114776 Oct 24 2012, DECLARATION AND ORDER: UCC Doc # 2012096074, masquerading as a government entity with a higher authority than the Creator.

3. Provide for me where it states that the IRS, which is not congress, can tax wages and compensation for personal services, instead of just the gain or profit derived indirectly from them.

4. Provide me the statute that makes him viable to pay taxes.

5. Provide evidence that disputes the fact that paying taxes is VOLUNTARY for a non-government employee. I have not seen any facts or been provided any evidence or claims that Brian Kelly is a public officer, employee, or elected official to any alleged government agency. Please provide any such evidence exists. A suggestion would be to produce the payroll records that Brian Kelly was performing the service or acting as a government employee to perform a function of government. I have enclosed Brian Kelly's Oath and Bond of Protector to the ONE PEOPLE which is renewed every eighty days.

6. Provide Material evidence that not one penny of the taxes, previously paid to the IRS, has not been spent on the murder of innocent men, women and children in Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

7. Provide Material evidence demonstrating that The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) has the legal right to demand payment for the taxable income for Brian Kelly for the tax years 2011-2013 including interest and penalty charges.

8. Provide Material evidence that Brian Kelly agreed or consented to the estimation by The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) of the alleged “amount he owes on this account.”

Please note:

Should any individual pursue any actions on behalf of a foreclosed Bank or “Government”, causing another individual any damage as herein described, they in their individual and unlimited capacity are absolutely liable. Please note invoice enclosed.

1914: Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383. Established that illegallyobtained evidence may not be used by the court or admitted intoevidence. This case is very useful in refuting the use by the IRS ofincome tax returns that were submitted involuntarily (note that thesereturns must say "submitted under compulsion in violation of 5thAmendment rights" or some such thing at the bottom.

1916: Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1. Establishedthat the 16th Amendment had no affect on the constitution, and thatincome taxes could only be sustained as excise taxes and not as directtaxes.

"...the proposition and the contentions under [the 16thAmendment]...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroyanother; That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of theAmendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment intoirreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all directtaxes be apportioned;

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear thelimitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment musthave intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructivechanges in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Moreover in addition the Conclusion reached in the Pollock Case didnot in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically andnecessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but onthe contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in itsnature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until itwas concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing theresult which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxationwas adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise todisregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the taxto the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excisewould not apply to it.

....the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended andon the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintainingthe limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

....the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challengingthe ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broadersignificance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personalproperty because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment atleast impliedly makes such wider significance a part of theConstitution -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that thepurpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to theextent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, theprevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income wasderived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a directtax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of theclass of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class ofdirect taxes...

Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of thedecision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling inthat case was based, there is no escape from the Conclusion that theAmendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future withthe principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, ofdetermining whether a tax on income was direct not by a considerationof the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directlyoperated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on theproperty from which the income was derived, since in express terms theAmendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the incomemay be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

1922: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20.

Prohibited Congress from legislating or controlling benefits thatemployers provide to their employees. A major blow against socialismin America! "Out of a proper respect for the acts of a co-ordinatebranch of the government, this court has gone far to sustain taxingacts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting, fromthe weight of the tax, it was intended to destroy its subject. But inthe act before [259 U.S. 20, 38] us the presumption of validitycannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the veryface of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all thatCongress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to itscontrol any one of the great number of subjects of public interest,jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which arereserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailedmeasure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by asocalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of thepowers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of thestates. "

1930: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111.

The Supreme Court ruled that wages and compensation for personalservices were not to be taxed in their entirety, but instead, the gainor profit derived indirectly from them.

1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303.

Ruled that disputes over uncertainties in the tax code should beresolved in favor of the taxpayer. "In view of other settled rules ofstatutory construction, which teach that... if doubt exists as to theconstruction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved infavor of the taxpayer..."

1959: Flora v. United, 362 US 145.

Ruled that our tax system is based on voluntary assessment andpayment, not on force or coercion. "Our system of taxation is basedupon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

1970: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748.

Supreme Court ruled that: "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not onlymust be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done withsufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."

1975: Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648.

Supreme Court ruled that income taxes constitute the compelledtestimony of a witness: "The information revealed in the preparationand filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of FifthAmendment analysis, the testimony of a witness."

"Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, forexample, the appearance of a `witness' before a grand jury."

The production of evidence or subpoenaed tax documents cannot becompelled. "We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holdingthat the contents of the subpoenaed documents were privileged underthe Fifth Amendment. The act of producing the documents at issue inthis case is privileged and cannot be compelled without a statutorygrant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 6002 and 6003."

1991: Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192.

Held that if the defendant has a subjective good faith belief nomatter how unreasonable, that he or she was not required to file a taxreturn, the government cannot establish that the defendant actedwillfully in not filing an income tax return. In other words, thatthe defendant shirked a legal duty that he knew existed.

Court held that income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment mustcome from a "source". Congress's intent through 61 of the InternalRevenue Code [26 USCS 61(a)]--which provides that gross income meansall income from whatever source derived, subject to only theexclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code...and61(a)'s statutory precursors..."

1995: U.S. v. Lopez, 000 U.S. U10287.

Establishes strict limits on the constitutional power and jurisdictionof the federal government inside the 50 States.

"We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a FederalGovernment of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. AsJames Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposedConstitution to the federal government are few and defined. Thosewhich are to remain in the State governments are numerous andindefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed.1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "wasadopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamentalliberties."

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotationmarks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of thecoordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent theaccumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balanceof power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce therisk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulateCommerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and withthe Indian Tribes." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3. The Court,through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress'commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824):

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it isintercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations,and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated byprescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."

The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribethe rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like allothers vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised toits utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than areprescribed in the constitution." Id., at 196. The Gibbons Court,however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power areinherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.

"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce,which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and manin a State, or between different parts of the same State, and whichdoes not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would beinconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

"Comprehensive as the word `among' is, it may very properly berestricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. . .. The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and thatsomething, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence,must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State." Id., at194-195.

For nearly a century thereafter, the Court's Commerce Clause decisionsdealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almostentirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation thatdiscriminated against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Veazie v.Moor, 14 How. 568, 573-575 (1853) (upholding a state-createdsteamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internalcommerce); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 17, 20-22 (1888) (upholdinga state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor becausethe commerce power "does not comprehend the purely domestic commerceof a State which is carried on between man and man within a State orbetween different parts of the same State"); see also L. Tribe,American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed. 1988). Under this line ofprecedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as"production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were within the provinceof state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress underthe Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 121(1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence).

[.]

Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broadcategories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commercepower. Perez v. United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v.Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277.First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstatecommerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U.S., at 114 ; Heart of AtlantaMotel, supra, at 256. "`[T]he authority of Congress to keep thechannels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious useshas been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.'"[quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917)].Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect theinstrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things ininterstate commerce, even though the threat may come only fromintrastate activities. See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S.342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911)(upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehiclesused in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 ("[F]or example,the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. 32), or . . . theftsfrom interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. 659)"). Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activitieshaving a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & LaughlinSteel, 301 U.S., at 37 , i.e., those activities that substantiallyaffect interstate commerce. Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES:

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moralduty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would beintentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shockingconduct...If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sortof deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should becorrected immediately"

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing governmentstatutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that governmentagents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"

"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of theStatutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals withthe government assumes the risk that the agent acting in thegovernment's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of taxassessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not tonon-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures areprescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any oftheir rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congressdoes not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor theobject of the revenue laws."

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mereprivilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity whichowes its existence and charter powers to the state; but theindividuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights forthe enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.

"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 FSupp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' andwages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages)cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business orinvestment- - - a different thing altogether from the merecompensation for labor."

"...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in thisparticular between an individual and a corporation, and that thelatter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for anexamination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand uponhis constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry onhis private business in his own way. His power to contract isunlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors todivulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so faras it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state,since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his lifeand property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the landlong antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only betaken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with theConstitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself,and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizureexcept under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public solong as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. Itis presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. Itreceives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds themsubject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorizedby its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporationare only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate itscontracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It wouldbe a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered acorporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in theexercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had beenemployed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the productionof the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defenseamounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is chargedwith a criminal violation of the statute, may plead thecriminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. Tostate this proposition is to answer it. While an individual maylawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected byan immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vestedwith special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its handwhen charged with an abuse of such privileges. "

Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not properly officially ratified; "person(s)" refer to corporate fictitious entities usually in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, ie BRIAN KELLY, entirely separate and different from live people; if people submit to wages being taxed,that equates to slavery, which we do NOT wish to submit to in any way, shape, or form!

So, you're saying everyone should lay down and continue to get steam rolled by the system?...when enough of us "ask the question", stand in our Truth, demand change, take action, the system loses it's power. Take a look at Egypt, Syria, Brazil. Not sure about you, but I've had enough, and I speak for many others when I say loudly NOT ANYMORE. I DO NOT CONSENT. Much love :)

Hi Brian...Very nice research, but I have several friends who tried this and spent the next 10 years and thousands of dollars fighting the bastards. One is a legal secretary. The judges are bribed thousands of dollars in advance to see things from the IRS perspective. I read somewhere it was about $5,000 each.I suggest that each person simply withhold their own taxes in separate bank accounts for each type of tax... if the company a person works for won't allow it, get an IRS withholding exemption form. They allow for this in situations where it looks like the company is on shaky footing. You don't have to pay until the last day it is due... you collect the interest on this money instead of the company you work for.I have the feeling that we will see this evil system brought down really soon. Consider joining a citizens' militia group.Bless you.

when the people of the united states do have the time to act as a organized group, the govt will have to listen, but by keeping us broke and living from paycheck to paycheck they keep us divided and too busy to have time to organize, but with this blog and others, and what is happening in egypt and other countries, i can see change on the horizon, and articles like this are worthy of praise for that cause, thanks for posting this

Great info! However, I agree with Suzanne that, at this moment, fighting the legality of taxes will bring a significant amount of legal challenge and, worse, most people who have tried have ended up in jail. I personally would hate to see you end up in jail over $4,000. We need you to keep spreading the word! In fact, just the week, I heard about a conversation a person had with an IRS collection agent. The person basically said paying taxes is voluntary, etc., etc. and any "schemes" to not pay are defrauding the IRS. The agent said the problem is, if they admit these schemes and arguments are lawful, they would set a precedent that all the people they put in jail would have been unlawful. How crazy does that sound! That's how they think. Question for me is how can we organize a true mass protest that enforces the truth we already know about them?

Thanks for your concern! But I assure you, no one can be locked up over $4,000 :) My old boss had over $250,000 in state and federal tax liens, he passed away still owing every penny. The worse they can do do is a tax lien against your property and assets...well I have no assets so no worries there! This is what the people need to understand. I DON'T CARE if they try to give me any problems. I'm willing to pay the consequences if that's what's necessary. If EVERYONE took this stance there would be no IRS. Plain and simple. I have not one ounce of fear in my body. The system will come crumbling down and when it does we all will never have to deal with any of this BS ever again! :)

Brian,All you have to do with notice from the State, is write: NO CONTRACT, Return to Senderon the front of the envelope. Eventually, the State will fold, because, in fact, you DO NOT have a contract with the State-----and they know it!

This is an interesting article. I wanted to learn about a IRS wage garnishment because it is a method of the IRS taking money when someones doesn't pay their taxes. I study law so I really wanted to know the different forms of wage garnishments.

Brian Kelly

Send me an email to setup an appt. Or, friend me on facebook at www.facebook.com/bkellybroiler ;)

Testimonial:

"I felt completely at ease with Brian as our session began. I appreciated that his commitment was as strong for connecting with me as it is for healing the planet. The insights Brain offered me were extremely helpful and the energy work has made a noticeable improvement in my daily life. I highly recommend connecting with Brian through his Reiki work. It'll boost your Daily Giggle Allowance!" - Don Murphy